Forum

Insurance Business forum is the place for positive industry interaction and welcomes your professional and informed opinion.

Notify me of new replies via email
Insurance Business | 09 Nov 2016, 08:39 AM Agree 0
One state Government has said that insurers have an “obligation” to foot a bill
  • Ian Jones | 09 Nov 2016, 12:40 PM Agree 0
    With 30 years experience, it has always been my understanding that Actions of the Sea are a general exclusion across pretty well every insurers policy - Bus Pack or ISR (unless caused by earthquake or seismic activity i.e. Tsunami). Maybe someone needs to give the Minister an insurance wording lesson 1 on 1. I would think he needs to cop it on the chin rather than try to shift the blame onto the insurers. They have NO obligation outside of the policy wording and his blame game does nothing other than heap crap on the insurance industry in general for no substantiated reason.
  • An Old Broker | 10 Nov 2016, 12:43 PM Agree 0
    Some years ago, I was engaged as a broker with a local government authority who owned a wharf/jetty extending into the sea. I alerted the council to the fact that Action of the Sea was a specific exclusion and noted that if they wanted me to obtain the cover it would be subject to a structural engineers' report on the integrity of the wharf - it also had timber piles - and that the cover would be costly if available.

    We did secure a market by way of a facultative line into London but subject to the engineer's report and recommendations being complied with. The engineer's report questioned the integrity of the structure which was considered unstable without significant engineering work (including concrete piling)taking place. Without that work being done, wave action damage over time was considered inevitable.

    I attended the council meeting and outlined the situation however, council declined to do the remedial work on the wharf and thus i had to advise that 'risk transfer' was not achievable.

    Subsequently, we lost that business and another intermediary took it over and told council that action of the sea was not a problem but never asked to see the engineer's report.

    Should we get a big blow the wharf could go and I have no doubt there will be another fight once the undisclosed materiality of the engineer's report becomes known.

    There you go !
Post a reply